ReviewHealth and technology2023
Systematic review of the performance evaluation of clinicians with or without the aid of machine learning clinical decision support system.
Review in Health and technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Healthcare Professionals' Characteristics on the Evaluation of Clinical Decision Support Systems: Insights from a Cross-Country Usability and Technology Acceptance Study of the iCARE Tool.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Efficacy of Fine-Tuned Large Language Model in CT Protocol Assignment as Clinical Decision-Supporting System.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Machine learning innovations in CPR: a comprehensive survey on enhanced resuscitation techniques.Artificial intelligence review · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: For the adoption of machine learning clinical decision support systems (ML-CDSS) it is critical to understand the performance aid of the ML-CDSS. However, it is not trivial, how the performance aid should be evaluated. To design reliable performance evaluation study, both the knowledge from the practical framework of experimental study design and the understanding of domain specific design factors are required. Objective: The aim of this review study was to form a practical framework and identify key design factors for experimental design in evaluating the performance of clinicians with or without the aid of ML-CDSS. Methods: The study was based on published ML-CDSS performance evaluation studies. We systematically searched articles published between January 2016 and December 2022. From the articles we collected a set of design factors. Only the articles comparing the performance of clinicians with or without the aid of ML-CDSS using experimental study methods were considered. Results: The identified key design factors for the practical framework of ML-CDSS experimental study design were performance measures, user interface, ground truth data and the selection of samples and participants. In addition, we identified the importance of randomization, crossover design and training and practice rounds. Previous studies had shortcomings in the rationale and documentation of choices regarding the number of participants and the duration of the experiment. Conclusion: The design factors of ML-CDSS experimental study are interdependent and all factors must be considered in individual choices. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12553-023-00763-1.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.